Laparoscopic-assisted ERCP following RYGB: a 12-year assessment of outcomes and learning curve at a high-volume pancreatobiliary center.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of pancreaticobiliary pathology following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) poses significant technical challenges. Laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LA-ERCP) can overcome those anatomical hurdles, allowing access to the papilla. Our aims were to analyze our 12-year institutional outcomes and determine the learning curve for LA-ERCP. METHODS: A retrospective review of cases between 2007 and 2019 at a high-volume pancreatobiliary unit was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of specific outcomes. To identify the learning curve, CUSUM analyses and innovative methods for standardizing the surgeon's timelines were performed. RESULTS: 131 patients underwent LA-ERCP (median age 60, 81% females) by 17 surgeons and 10 gastroenterologists. Cannulation of the papilla was achieved in all cases. Indications were choledocholithiasis (78%), Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction/Papillary stenosis (18%), management of bile leak (2%) and stenting/biopsy of malignant strictures (2%). Median total, surgical and ERCP times were 180, 128 and 48 min, respectively, and 47% underwent concomitant cholecystectomy. Surgical site infection developed in 9.2% and post-ERCP pancreatitis in 3.8%. Logistic regression revealed multiple abdominal operations and magnitude of BMI decrease (between RYGB and LA-ERCP) to be predictive of conversion to open approach. CUSUM analysis of operative time demonstrated a learning curve at case 27 for the surgical team and case 9 for the gastroenterology team. On binary cut analysis, 3-5 cases per surgeon were needed to optimize operative metrics. CONCLUSION: LA-ERCP is associated with high success rates and low adverse events. We identify outcome benchmarks and a learning curve for new adopters of this increasingly performed procedure.

Unique predictors and economic burden of superficial and deep/organ space surgical site infections following pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following pancreatectomy and associated with significant morbidity and economic burden. We sought to identify distinct predictors for superficial versus deep/organ space SSIs and their effects on surgical outcomes. METHODS: ACS-NSQIP targeted pancreatectomy 2014 and 2015 databases were queried. Univariate and multivariate models were developed for both types of SSI, length of stay (LOS), and readmission. Costs were estimated based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recommendations. RESULTS: Of 8093 patients, there were 422 (5.2%) superficial and 1005 (12.4%) deep/organ space SSIs. On multivariate analyses, preoperative biliary stenting was predictive only for superficial SSI (OR: 2.21), while BMI of 25-29.9 (OR: 1.25) and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (OR: 1.53), pancreatic duct size <3 mm (OR: 1.30), and intermediate (OR: 1.67) versus hard gland texture were predictors of deep/organ-space SSI. Superficial and deep/organ space SSIs were independent predictors of prolonged LOS (OR: 1.74 vs 1.80) and readmission (OR: 2.59 vs 6.57). Additional readmission costs per patient secondary to superficial SSI and deep/organ space SSI were $7661.37 and $18,409.42, respectively. CONCLUSION: Deep/organ space SSI contributes more profoundly to prolonged hospital stay, readmission, and additional costs, suggesting that strategies should focus on preferential prevention of deep/organ space infections.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery.

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.

Expected and Unexpected Consequences of the Affordable Care Act: The Impact on Patients and Surgeons-Pro and Con Arguments.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "ObamaCare" for short, was enacted in 2010. The Public Policy and Advocacy Committee of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT) hosted a debate with an expert panel to discuss the ACA and its impact on surgical care after the first year of patient enrollment. The purpose of this debate was to focus on the impact of ACA on the public and surgeons. At the core of the ACA are insurance industry reforms and expanded coverage, with a goal of improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care. We have observed supportive and opposing views on ACA. Nonetheless, we will witness major shifts in health care delivery as well as restructuring of our relationship with payers, institutions, and patients. With the rapidly changing health care landscape, surgeons will become key members of health systems and will likely need to lead transition from solo-practice to integrated care systems. The full effects of the ACA remain unrealized, but its implementation has begun to change the map of the American health care system and will surely impact the practice of surgery. Herein, we provide a synopsis of the "pro" and "con" arguments for the expected and unexpected consequences of the ACA on society and surgeons.

Surgical management of chronic pancreatitis: current utilization in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention is uncommon in chronic pancreatitis. Literature largely describes single institution or international experiences. This study describes US-based chronic pancreatitis surgical management. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of chronic pancreatitis patients in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database 2007-2011. Patients with malignancy or congenital abnormalities were excluded. Univariate analysis using the chi-square test. The number of readmissions, inpatient length of stay and cost using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. Multivariate analysis of surgery by logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-one thousand four hundred and forty-five patients with chronic pancreatitis. 10.8% (2 307) underwent surgery including 1652 cholecystectomies, 564 drainage procedures and 498 pancreatectomies. Procedures decreased from 12.1% to 8.3% over time (P < 0.001), but intervention within 3 months increased (7.2% to 8.4%; P = 0.017). 15.3% (3 278) had pancreatic cysts/pseudocysts and 43.4% (9 312) had diabetes. The median numbers of admissions were 2 [interquartile range (IQR) 1,5] and 3 (IQR 2,7) among non-surgical and surgical patients, respectively (P < 0.001). Predictors of surgery were fewer co-morbidities, private insurance, and either diabetes mellitus or pancreatic cyst/pseudocyst. CONCLUSION: Chronic pancreatitis leads to numerous inpatient readmissions, but surgical intervention only occurs in a minority of cases. Complicated patients are more likely to undergo surgery. The complexities of chronic pancreatitis management warrant early multidisciplinary evaluation and ongoing consideration of surgical and non-surgical options.

A nationwide assessment of outcomes after bile duct reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct reconstruction (BDR) is used to manage benign and malignant neoplasms, congenital anomalies, bile duct injuries and other non-malignant diseases. BDR outcomes overall, by year, and by indication were compared. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of Nationwide Inpatient Sample discharges (2004-2011) including ICD-9 codes for BDR. All statistical testing was performed using survey weighting. Univariate analysis of admission characteristics by chi square testing. Multivariate modelling for inpatient complications and inpatient death by logistic regression. RESULTS: Identified 67 160 weighted patient admissions: 2.5% congenital anomaly, 37.4% malignant neoplasm, 2.3% benign neoplasm, 9.9% biliary injury, 47.9% other non-malignant disease. Most BDRs were performed in teaching hospitals (69.6%) but only 25% at centres with a BDR volume more than 35/year. 32.3% involved ≥ 1 complication, and 84.7% were discharges home. There was a 4.2% inpatient death rate. The complication rate increased but the inpatient death rate decreased over time. The rates of acute renal failure increased. Significant multivariate predictors of inpatient death include indication of biliary injury or malignancy, and predictors of any complication include public insurance and non-elective admission. CONCLUSION: This is the first national description of BDRs using a large database. In this diverse sampling, both procedure indication and patient characteristics influence morbidity and mortality.

Patient selection and the volume effect in pancreatic surgery: unequal benefits?

BACKGROUND: The volume effect in pancreatic surgery is well established. Regionalization to high-volume centres has been proposed. The effect of this proposal on practice patterns is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective review of pancreatectomy patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2004-2011. Inpatient mortality and complication rates were calculated. Patients were stratified by annual centre pancreatic resection volume (low <5, medium 5-18, high >18). Multivariable regression model evaluated predictors of resection at a high-volume centre. RESULTS: In total, 129,609 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 4.3%. 36.0% experienced complications. 66.5% underwent a resection at high-volume centres. In 2004, low-, medium- and high-volume centres resected 16.3%, 24.5% and 59.2% of patients, compared with 7.6%, 19.3% and 73.1% in 2011. High-volume centres had lower mortality (P < 0.001), fewer complications (P < 0.001) and a shorter median length of stay (P < 0.001). Patients at non-high-volume centres had more comorbidities (P = 0.001), lower rates of private insurance (P < 0.001) and more non-elective admissions (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In spite of a shift to high-volume hospitals, a substantial cohort still receives a resection outside of these centres. Patients receiving non-high-volume care demonstrate less favourable comorbidities, insurance and urgency of operation. The implications are twofold: already disadvantaged patients may not benefit from the high-volume effect; and patients predisposed to do well may contribute to observed superior outcomes at high-volume centres.